Have a comment on this page? Email the Odd Emperor!

Mott, more and more Mott!Part 5

This message is not flagged. [ Flag Message - Mark as Unread ]
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Odd Empire" <odd_empire@yahoo.com> | This is spam | Add to Address Book
Subject: Re: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
To: mottimorph@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wm. Michael Mott" <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
To: <oddempire_list@blackfish-enterprises.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: Fw: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES

Redundant bits snipped.

> The point is a simple one. These anomalies exist,
and >are unaccounted for without the consideration of
>non-human or pre-human agency. The Eltanin antenna,
>for instance, was discovered decades ago, by a U.S.
>government survey ship. Your (typical) ad hominem,
>personal attack on someone reporting it (in this case
>Streiber, since this particular instance of the story
>was at his site--but it is in plenty of other
places), >in no way changes this fact. You use the
typical ad >hominem discrediting tactic of someone who
is
> short on knowledge and long on nerve. This seems to
>be your modus operandi in general, though.

Once again you are failing to address the issue and
bringing up a number of other unrelated things to
muddy the waters. I pointed out that nether rense.com
nor Undiscovered Country are what I would conceder
reliable sources and I gave you a few reasons why I
believe this. Then you have attempted to reverse my
argument that your (unending) personal attack is in
fact coming from me directed at those other two
gentlemen.

Are you unable to stick with one subject or is there
some other problem?

>
> > As for your other recommendation, Ill take a rain
> > check on that, thank you very much. What I find
> > arrogant is people expounding on subjects that
they
> > have little knowledge of.
>
>
> My, this is certainly the pot calling the kettle
>black. In fact, you expound on books--with
>intellectual adjectives like "crappy," no less--that
>you have never read. Arrogance, cluelessness, and
>pomposity--as revealed by your nom de plume of
>"Emperor--" certainly are accurate terms to describe
>you. BTW, this is not "ad hominem;" it is
observation >based on demonstrable facts and examples.

I actually read much of your material on your old web
page (and enjoyed much of it). The adjective "crappy"
was describing self published books in general.

Besides, I am arrogant! I admit that! Would you care
to send me a copy of your book so I can read it an
become more enlightened? It probably won't do anything
for my arrogance problem but it might give you the
satisfaction of trying.

>
> >If you fall under this
> > framework I would call you arrogant. Since I know
you
> > only from some of your work and this letter I can
only
> > say that your conclusions appear misguided and
more
> > than a little arrogant. That is simply one opinion
> > based on what I have read on your web page. Your
> > letter here serves to confirm that I was correct.
> >
>
> Au contraire, I believe that your reply more than
>demonstrates your own abysmal arrogance and
ignorance. >You repeat the same errors of reasoning
in your >arguments; you make sweeping generalizations,
ad >hominem statements and pronouncements (based in no
>discernable fact, but only in your own arrogance and
>self-certainty), and puerile statements of various
>sorts.

Only the discernable facts of your statements, nothing
else.

>
> >
> >> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in
> > Nirvana....
> >
> > The last statement demonstrates that you have
little
> > understanding of the Hindu religion. That.s OK,
the
> > concepts are rather complex. Lots of people have a
> > hard time with them.
> >
>
> Nirvana is a Buddhist tenet and concept--in fact, it
>is the penultimate goal of that religion. There you
go >again, demonstrating for all your complete
ignorance of >topics you stand in judgement of--in
this case, >religion, mythology, and related fields.
You are >truely a pompous cartoon, "Emperor."
Unfortunately, >you have no clothes. Your nude mind,
shriveled and >unrounded as it is, is not an appealing
sight....

Here we go again.....

Nirvana is indeed a Hindu concept as well as a
Buddhist one. You might want to check your tailor
again. It also proves my point that you don't really
understand, achieving "nothingness" is not what I had
in mind.

I.E

"Nirvana. This is the goal of the Hindu. Nirvana is the release of the soul from the seemingly endless cycle of rebirths. "

http://www.contenderministries.org/hinduism/hindubeliefs.php

I really have no idea why Mr. Mott thought bashing me over the head with this was useful.

you demonstrate on your webpage, where you expound on
matters and works of which you have absolutely no
clue whatsoever. Again, to call you a buffoon is not
an ad hominem attack; it's simply an observation
based on your behavior and very poor reasoning
ability. By theway, it's "ad hominem," not
"homonym". Again, youdemonstrate your ignorance,
combined with a laughable arrogance.

>
Why, you are correct! Thank you .

See how easy that was, now what were we really talking
about?

Actually he is correct and has found the Achilles heel of the Odd Emperor. you see the Odd Emperor is actually a relatively poor speller. I'm not really making excuses about this, if Mr Mott thinks that people with good spelling skills have a monopoly on the truth then the Odd Emperor would probably disagree.

But he did get about two points in the discussion by mentioning mispelled words, way ta go!

How many points did I get? I never bother to count!

(Of course I did bother to check on Mr. Motts spelling skill in this and other exchanges. Very interesting.)

> > Case in point; my review of your web page is
mocking
> > in tone, a little insulting to your conclusions
but it
> > does not in any way insult or offend you
personally,
> > nor does it call you names.
> >
>
>

>See the above statement. In fact, such insult is
>clearly implied; and the fact that you are clueless
>about the material you deride indicates clearly what
>kind of person you are. Have you read the books in
>question? Of course not. This paints quite a clear
>picture of you, or would seem to do so.

Of course I have, much more than you can possibly
imagine.

Naturally is meaning is ambiguous, which books is he referring to? The one nonfiction and the fantasy novel? I have actually have read many of the books he cited as source on his old web page.

Say, are you running this through several language
translators before reading it or someting? You do not
seem to understand what I'm saying at all.

>Your "position" (a lack of one, actually) has been
>clearly refuted. Your own attempts at rebuttal only
>assist, in your self-discrediting (see all of the
>above).

I have seen it, you have not rebutted any shred of my
position (that you have a silly web page).

>

What do you call what we are doing?

I am debating, you are abusing.

> You see, your entire position is based on ad hominem
>garbage; you know nothing of that of which you write.
>You have no basis for argumentation, since you have
no >knowledge of the topics (or books) you seek to
refute.
> You've really stuck your foot in it, haven't you?
>

Prove that please. I have not once insulted you
personally, unless you call poking fun at your ideas a
personal affront, in which case I would closely
examine why you are so offended.

More snippage

> > If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask
> > that you run it by me first. I already have your
> > permission to publish your words, thank you very
much!
> >
>
> Yours is assumed by your participation in this
>conversation. You can further assume that any
>reproduction will be reciprocal.
>

Nope, I did not agree to any such thing. I'm not too
worried though and I never assume anything. You
however made it very clear that you want me to publish
this letter on the Empire page. I am making it clear
that any content on the Odd Empire web page located at
URL http://www.blackfish-enterprises.com/oddempire/ is
copyrighted material as described by the disclaimer.

> > I.m reading about four right now, I'm.m in the
middle of
> > a re-write of one and in the primary write of
another
> > (it.s a slow week).
> >
>
> Re-writing...What? Surely not your own work(s)?
>
Who else's - not the stuff I'm reading. Sorry that
statement *was* a little unclear.

> How about a little evidence? Can you point me to
your >published works? I'd love to take a look at
them.
>

- I bet! ; )

I have several things on the web under different
names. One is actually based on stuff that I found on
your own web page if you can believe that.
Unfortunately I'm a little reluctant to tell you more
(for reasons that should be obvious) , maybe later, if
you'r really really good!

>
> I utilize Occam/Ockham's theorem in a similar frame
of >reference. If you go to
>http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Earth.html, and
>read Section 8, you'll see what I mean.

Actually, someone else suckered me in this way once. As the saying goes, fool me once shame on you....

At some point I may, I suspect that you are in a data
collection mode right now so any perusal of a web page
(presumably) under your control would not be a good
idea concerning the level of attack you have already
demonstrated.

> I actually enjoyed our exhange. Good mental
exercise.
>
> --Wm. M. Mott
>

Ditto!
Take care!

>
>

=====
Sincerely;
The Odd Emperor

But wait.....